Communication and multimodality

The general lines of work of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established under Chapter XIV (Articles 92 to 96) of the Charter of the United Nations Organization.

Article 92 of the UN Charter states that the ICJ shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and shall function in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court which is annexed to the UN Charter.

By Article 93 of the Charter, all members of the UN are ipso facto parties to the Statute of ICJ. A non-member of the UN may become a party to the Statute of the Court on conditions to be determined in each case by the UN General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Article 94 of the UN Charter provides that each member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party. Failure of a party to a case to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court will provide the other party the choice of approaching the Security Council, which may, if it deems it necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

The effect of the provisions of Article 94 of the Charter seems to have stared Nigeria in the face after the decision of the ICJ in the Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening).⁴

Sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula and areas in the Lake Chad Basin was the source of this long-running territorial dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon. With estimated populations of 37,500 and 60,000, respectively,⁵ and significant resources located therein, both states had claimed the Bakassi Peninsula and Lake Chad basin for at least 20

__________________________________________

4. [2002] F.W.L.R. (Pt. 133), Pages 202 to 414.

5. See Counter-Memorial of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria) [1999] ICJ Rep, Pleadings, paras. 33, 416 (May), ICJ Doc CR 2002/9, at 45, Para. 134 (1 Mar. 2002).

years and, despite years of bilaterial negotiations, no diplomatic progress had been achieved. Armed clashes throughout the region continued. The stalemate caused increasing frustration on the part of Cameroon; indeed, just before its 1994 application to the ICJ, 34 of its soldiers had reportedly died in a border skirmish.

Cameroon submitted the case unilaterally, and invoked the ICJ‟s jurisdiction pursuant to both states‟ declarations adhering to Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute. Upon commencement of the case, Nigeria initially contested jurisdiction, arguing that both states had already agreed to settle the dispute through existing bilateral channels.⁶ Despite its initial resentments, Nigeria later participated fully throughout the ICJ proceedings. On the ground, armed conflict continued while the case was pending.

The ICJ‟s October 2002 judgment awarded Cameroon the Lake Chad boundary it sought, and allocated around 30 villages to Cameroon and a few to Nigeria. The Court also awarded Cameroon the Bakassi Peninsula. Nigeria won the Maritime-related ruling contained in the Judgment and much of the boundary between Lake Chad and Bakassi. The Court explicitly obligated both parties to withdraw their military, police, and administration from the affected areas „expeditiously and without condition‟.⁷ As for Equatorial Guinea, the intervener, the ICJ drew the maritime boundary in a manner favourable to it.

Soon after the ICJ judgment, Nigeria issued an official statement which appeared to accept parts of the decision it considered fair or favourable while rejecting other parts it found „unacceptable‟. Nigeria pleaded its Constitution‟s principles of federalism as a reason for non-compliance: since „all land and territory comprising the nation of Nigeria is specified in the Constitution‟, the federal government could not give up Bakassi until the requisite national and state assemblies amended the Constitution.⁸ President Obasanjo of

_____________________________________________

6. Preliminary Objection of Nigeria, Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria) [1998] ICJ Rep. 275 at para 18; [2002] F.W.L.R. (Pt. 132) 1.

7. Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria [2002] ICJ Rep. 303, at para. 325.

8. „Cameroon: Bakassi: Why the ICJ Judgment is Unacceptable-Government‟. Africa News Service. 24 Oct 2002. Available in Lexis. News Library. Allnews file.

Nigeria explained the country‟s position thus: „[w]e want peace, but the interest of Nigeria will not be sacrificed…[W]hat may be legally right may not be politically expedient‟.⁹ A Cameroonian politician, however, believed that Nigeria‟s official position is one of deliberate indifference – it neither accepts nor rejects the verdict.¹⁰

Some viewed Nigeria as being recalcitrant and its position as troubling holding that both countries had agreed in advance to respect whatever decision the ICJ arrived at.

President Paul Biya of Cameroon reported that he and President Obasanjo had agreed to abide by the ICJ judgment in a meeting with UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan on 5 September 2002, and the United Nations issued a press statement to that effect.¹¹ Nigeria contested the existence of any such agreement contending that they had merely discussed confidence-building measures to reduce tension on the border and mandated Annan‟s staff to issue a statement.

Others viewed the Nigerian government‟s position as understandable when one considers that it was under tremendous internal political pressure not to respect the judgment especially with regard to Bakassi, as various large Nigerian groups have opposed it and called for war, if necessary. Ethnic Nigerians in the area also feared unequal treatment and persecution by Cameroon.¹²

The international community had taken interest in ensuring compliance with the ICJ‟s judgment, and had subjected Nigeria to substantial diplomatic pressure. While the United States and France had pressured Nigeria to accept the ruling, the United Kingdom took the lead – the British High Commissioner to Nigeria stated: „[ICJ] judgments are binding and not subject to appeal. Nigeria has an obligation under the United Nations

_______________________________________________

9. Ogwuda. „Bakassi: I‟m Ready for Talks with Biya, says Obasanjo‟. Vanguard Newspaper (Lagos), 30 October 2002. Available at www.allafrica.com.

10. „Nigeria Has No Substantive Claim on Bakasi-Cameroonian Politician‟. Weekly Trust (Kaduna). 13 December 2002. Available at www.allafrica.com.

11. „Nigeria Defends Defiance of World Court Border Ruling‟. UN Press Release SG/T/2344 (10 September 2002).

12. A P. Llamzon „Jurisdiction and Compliance in Recent Decisions of the International Court of Justice‟ EJIL (2007) Vol. 18 No. 5, 815 at 836.

Charter to comply with the judgment‟.¹³ The British Foreign Minister for Africa then met with the ambassador to remind him that President Obasanjo had promised to abide by the Judgment. This hard line softened considerably, however, to asking that Nigeria „establish a dialogue with Cameroon to find a political way forward‟, possibly because of the possibility that Nigeria was indeed ready to resort to war.¹⁴

Following intensive mediation efforts by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, the two states on 12 June 2006 entered into an agreement setting out a „comprehensive resolution of the dispute‟ over the Bakassi peninsula in reliance upon the ICJ demarcation.¹⁵ In August 2006, both states held a joint ceremony to mark the transfer of control over the peninsula through the withdrawal of Nigerian troops from the northern part of the territory.

While the Cameroon v. Nigeria ICJ judgment compliance case ended in mutual agreement of the parties, in the case of Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v. Honduras: Nicaragua Intevening,¹⁶ Honduras had in January 2002 made a formal accusation of non-compliance under Article 94(2) of the UN Charter against El Salvador asking the Security Council to make recommendations to induce Salvadorans obedience of the ICJ judgment.

Again, in the case of Territorial Dispute (Libya v. Chad)¹⁷ over the Aouzou Strip, despite the fact that both parties submitted the dispute to the ICJ and equally recognized the decision of the court awarding the entire Aouzou Strip to Chad, Libya under Col. Moamar Gadafi still did not comply with the ICJ decision. This necessitated Chadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs formal protest on 30 January 1997 and threat to take the matter to the Security Council under Article 94(2) of the UN Charter. However, following a call for

__________________________________________

13. Paulson. „Compliance with Final Judgment of the Intenrational Court of Justice since 1987‟ EJIL (2004) Vol.

98, 434 citing Agence France Press. Doc. FBIS-AFR-2002-1025 (25 October 2002).

14. Ibid.

15. See „Cameroon, Nigeria Sign Agreement Ending Decades-Old Border Dispute‟. UN Press Release AFR/1397.

12 June 2006.

16. [1992] ICJ Rep 351.

17. See ICJ Judgment of 3 February 1994 reported in [1994] ICJ Rep 6.

UN or specialized agency to request advisory opinions of the ICJ on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.

peace by President Deby of Chad and mutual visits by both heads of state signaling a

„definitive reconciliation of the two countries‟ in 1998, the UN Security Council intervention became unnecessary as Chadian sovereignty over the disputed Aouzou Strip was recognized by Libya.

Under Article 95 of the UN Charter, the establishment of the ICJ does not prevent members of the United Nations from entrusting the solution of their differences to other tribunals by virtue of agreements already in existence or which may be concluded in the future.

By Article 96 of the Charter, the General Assembly or the Security Council may request the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on any legal question. Moreover, the General Assembly may under Article 96(2) authorize any other organ of the UN or specialized agency to request advisory opinions of the ICJ on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.

The request of advisory opinion takes the form of a written document containing an exact statement of the question upon which the opinion is requested and such request is to be accompanied by all relevant documents.